International Criminal Law – Your Defense Across Borders
Criminal proceedings no longer end at national borders. Globally networked economies, international collaborations, cross-border investigations, and Europe-wide prosecution mechanisms present those affected with entirely new challenges.
Our law firm specializes in international criminal law – this encompasses all criminal proceedings involving cross-border issues or international institutions. We defend clients in complex situations where various European authorities are involved and transnational investigative structures exist – wherever national criminal law, international regulations, and state cooperation overlap.
Act now – contact us for an initial assessment
Legal assistance proceedings between states
Mutual legal assistance refers to the formalized cooperation between sovereign states for the execution of criminal procedural measures within the territory of the other state. Such measures include, for example, the gathering of evidence (witness testimony, presentation of documents); searches and seizures, as well as service of process and summonses. The legal basis for this is bilateral treaties, multilateral agreements (e.g., the EU Mutual Legal Assistance Convention), and national mutual legal assistance laws.
European Investigation Order (EEA) / European Investigations
The European Investigation Order (EEA) is a harmonized instrument for cross-border evidence gathering across the EU. An EU member state can compel another EU member state to carry out a specific investigative measure under its national law. The legal basis for this is Directive 2014/41/EU, transposed into German law in Sections 91a et seq. of the German Act on International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (IRG). The EEA largely replaces the previous system of mutual legal assistance in criminal matters within the EU with a uniform, binding procedure featuring strict deadlines and fewer grounds for refusal.
An EEA is a formal request from one EU Member State to another Member State to carry out a specific investigative measure or to transmit evidence. Examples of such investigative measures include:
- Search and seizure
- Telecommunications surveillance
- Examination of witnesses or suspects
- Release of documents or data
- covert investigative measures
- Transmission of existing evidence
- Information requests (bank details, flight details, telecommunications connection data)
The requested authority generally carries out the measure in accordance with its national law, but must take into account the purpose of the requesting state.
The EEA is binding. A member state may refuse to implement it only in very limited exceptional cases. Possible grounds for refusal include:
- Immunities or privileges
- Risk of violation of fundamental rights
- Violations of the ne bis in idem principle
- Lack of criminal liability under the law of the requested state.
These grounds for rejection are interpreted restrictively, always according to the principle: EU member states must cooperate, not block..
The directive stipulates very tight deadlines: a maximum of 30 days for the decision on recognition and implementation; a maximum of 90 days for the full implementation of the measure. Delays must be justified and are only permitted in exceptional circumstances.
From a procedural perspective, a unique feature is the absence of traditional safeguards for legal assistance. The EEA replaces many of the protective mechanisms of traditional legal assistance, and the requested state has significantly less leeway in its review.
The EEA (Extended Enforcement Order) is highly intrusive; even complex or fundamental rights-relevant measures – such as telecommunications surveillance, searches, or covert investigations – can be subject to an EEA. However, suspects often have limited options for directly challenging the EEA, as legal remedies are frequently limited to the national implementation, and the requesting state, as the "master of the proceedings," is subject to only limited control. The implementation and use of the evidence are governed by the law of the requested state – a significant factor contributing to the complexity of the case.
The EEA can come as a surprise and trigger drastic measures – often without prior notification of the affected person. Typical difficulties include:
- Searches in multiple states simultaneously are possible
- the accelerated safeguarding of extensive data sets,
- parallel investigations by the states involved,
- lack of effective legal remedies,
- the risk of multiple persecution in different countries,
- the problematic usability of differently collected evidence.
Especially in complex economic or corruption cases, an EEA can suddenly change the dynamics of a proceeding.
What we as specialized criminal defense lawyers can do
Examination of the legality of the enactment, recognition and implementation of the EEA
Challenging national implementation measures (e.g. search warrants, seizures)
Coordination of parallel procedures in different states
Forensic analysis of the collected evidence and examination of its admissibility
Prevention of follow-up requests, especially threatened arrest warrants
Legal remedies against the use of unlawfully obtained evidence in the main proceedings
European Arrest Warrant
(EAW or EU-Hb)
A European Arrest Warrant (EAW) facilitates extradition within the EU. It replaces the traditional extradition procedure within the EU with a simplified, almost automated transfer process between member states. For those affected, this means that arrest and extradition can occur very quickly, with minimal safeguards.
The legal basis for this is Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant, implemented in Germany in the Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IRG), Sections 78 et seq.
A European arrest warrant may be issued:
a. For prosecution
if the requesting state attributes sufficient grounds for suspicion to the person concerned and a prison sentence of at least 12 months is at issue.
b. For the enforcement of sentences
if a legally binding judgment already exists and at least 4 months of imprisonment are to be served.
An EAW must contain, among other things:
The identity of the person, the specific charge or conviction, the legal basis and the penalty range, the description of the time, place and circumstances of the offense, the legal bases and relevant regulations, information on the guaranteed minimum guarantee in the case of judgments in absentia.
Formal defects rarely lead to invalidity – courts are obliged to request missing information, not to reject the application.
The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is based on the principle of mutual recognition. This means that the requested state is generally obligated to execute the arrest warrant without conducting its own examination of the suspicion of a crime or the evidence.
There are only a few possible reasons for rejection:
- ne bis in idem (the act has already been legally decided in an EU state),
- Minority, amnesty in the requested state, statute of limitations under the law of the requested state (in the case of criminal prosecution),
- serious violations of fundamental rights (e.g. inhumane prison conditions – subject to restrictive review)
Key decisions at EU level:
ECJ „Aranyosi/Căldăraru“ (C‑404/15, C‑659/15 PPU):
The ECJ has clarified that the executing state must suspend surrender if, based on concrete information, there is a "real risk" within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union / Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights that the person concerned would be subjected to inhuman or degrading detention conditions in the issuing state. If the issuing state fails to provide sufficient, individualized assurances regarding the detention conditions despite inquiries, this can lead to the (de facto) non-enforcement of the European Arrest Warrant.
ECJ „ML“ (C‑220/18 PPU) and „Dorobantu“ (C‑128/18):
Here, the ECJ clarifies that the courts of the executing state must examine the specific detention facilities and conditions of detention (cell area, overcrowding, sanitary facilities, etc.) and may refuse surrender if, despite diplomatic assurances, a real risk of detention violating human rights still exists.
ECtHR case law on the enforcement of EHB
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has repeatedly ruled that a state may refuse to enforce an extradition warrant if the person concerned would face a real risk of inhumane detention conditions upon surrender. In doing so, the Court requires a sufficiently concrete factual basis (e.g., CPT reports, NGOs, previous ECtHR judgments concerning the same country/institution) demonstrating that the detention conditions in the specific case would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
German case law on the European Arrest Warrant and conditions of detention:
Federal Constitutional Court (Case No. 2 BvR 424/17 - „Romania Detention“):
The Federal Constitutional Court upheld a constitutional complaint against an extradition decision due to insufficient examination of the threatened detention conditions in Romania and emphasized that Germany must not "lend a hand to treatment that violates human rights"; the specialized courts must seriously examine Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law, Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the ECJ line (Aranyosi) and, if necessary, refrain from extradition.
Higher Regional Court case law (including Higher Regional Court Bremen, Higher Regional Court Celle, Higher Regional Court Hamm):
Several Higher Regional Courts have initially suspended European arrest warrants, particularly from Romania, Hungary, Latvia, and other countries, obtained specific information on the intended detention facilities (cell area per prisoner, occupancy, sanitary facilities), and ultimately refrained from executing them if the assured detention conditions could not eliminate the risk of inhumane treatment. The German country report of the STREAM project documents cases in which extradition to Hungary (case "ML") was definitively rejected because even new assurances could not dispel the continuing risk of inhumane detention conditions.
Clarify your situation – quickly and confidentially
Criminal proceedings require swift action. The sooner we review your case, the better we can defend you.
When can (or must) the execution of a European Arrest Warrant be refused?
In cases of default judgments, the execution of a European Arrest Warrant can only be refused if the fair trial guarantees codified in Article 4a of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant are not in place. Where these minimum guarantees are lacking and there is no possibility of retrial, the surrender of the person in question is inadmissible due to a violation of Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union / Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (as amended by 2009/299/JHA) contains an optional ground for refusal of extradition based on the enforcement of a judgment rendered in absentia. Surrender may only be ordered despite a judgment in absentia if at least one of the following applies:
- timely and personal summons with an express/implied decision to waive,
- effective representation by a lawyer with a mandate, or
- the guaranteed possibility of a new, complete procedure after handover.
A rejection based on a default judgment is therefore particularly relevant if:
- the person concerned was neither personally summoned nor demonstrably informed otherwise specifically about the time and place of the main hearing;
- no authorized defense counsel was present at the main hearing (i.e., genuine "absence from the proceedings" without representation);
- There is no guarantee in the issuing state of a new, full procedure with the right to be present (including renewed taking of evidence).
In the absence of these guarantees, the court of the executing state may refuse the extradition request pursuant to Article 4a; some analyses report on national decisions (including those of Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands) in which extraditions to Polish or Italian default judgments were refused or suspended for precisely these reasons until a genuine retrial was assured.
ECJ landmark case „Melloni“:
In the „Melloni“ case (C-399/11), the CJEU ruled that a Member State may not refuse to enforce a waiver of a default judgment if the convicted person was duly informed of the date and place of the proceedings and was represented by their own defense counsel. Higher national standards (e.g., a general right to a retrial) may not undermine the final harmonization of Article 4a; however, the waiver and representation criteria must still be met in accordance with EU law.
German Practice and IRG:
In German law, Article 4a is implemented via Section 83, paragraph 1, no. 3, and paragraph 2 of the German Act on International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (IRG): Extradition for the enforcement of a judgment in absentia is inadmissible if the person sought was not able to exercise their right to be heard in the original proceedings in a manner that meets the minimum standards enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and no opportunity for a retrial exists. German Higher Regional Courts, when considering whether extradition is permissible, therefore examine whether there has been either proper summons and a conscious waiver of the right to remain absent, or a legally binding commitment from the issuing state to resume the case.
Federal Constitutional Court, Decision of 03.03.2004 (Case No. 2 BvR 26/04 - France):
Extradition for the enforcement of a default judgment is unconstitutional if the person prosecuted was neither informed about the conduct/conclusion of the proceedings nor subsequently has an effective opportunity to be heard and defend themselves.
Federal Constitutional Court, Decision of 15 December 2015 (Case No. 2 BvR 2735/14 – Italy):
Constitutional complaint against extradition for the enforcement of an Italian default judgment; the Federal Constitutional Court confirms that Section 83 of the German Act on International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (IRG) / Article 4a of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant must be adapted to the minimum constitutional standards, but does not require a "complete new trial" if an effective legal remedy exists for a comprehensive review of the default judgment.
KG Berlin, Decision of 28.01.2014 (Case No. 151 AuslA 159/13 (97/14) – Poland (Decision in Absence)):
Extradition to Poland for the enforcement of a judgment rendered in absentia was declared inadmissible because the situation described in Article 4a(1)(c) of the EU Arbitration Guidelines applied (only appeals after service of the judgment are permitted) and this provision had not yet been transposed into German law at that time.
Double criminal liability as a prerequisite
A prerequisite for the admissibility of extradition is dual criminality. This means that the act underlying the arrest warrant must be a criminal offense in both the requesting and the executing state.
In extradition law, extradition is generally only permissible if the conduct is punishable under both legal systems and carries a certain minimum sentence. However, under the European Arrest Warrant, this requirement is waived for certain serious categories of offenses listed in the EU legal framework (e.g., terrorism, corruption, cybercrime, or human trafficking) in order to expedite extradition. This means that the requested state does not examine whether the conduct would also be punishable under its own law.
There is a maximum of 60 days between arrest and the decision on extradition, and a maximum of 10 days between the decision and extradition. These deadlines can be extended in exceptional cases, but are politically and legally restrictive.
What we as specialized criminal defense lawyers can do
Examination of the formal requirements for issuing a European Arrest Warrant;
Applying for release if there are grounds for it, possibly also applying for a detention review hearing;
Examination of the formalized grounds for rejection;
Parallel defense in the other participating (requesting or requested) state: We coordinate the defense in the foreign proceedings – if necessary with the assistance of experienced foreign colleagues from our network.
Advice, support and assistance to the person concerned in extradition proceedings: We protect against risks of self-incrimination, misunderstandings during arrest interrogations or situations of pressure.
Our firm has particular expertise in extradition proceedings and dealing with European Arrest Warrants. We immediately examine the legality of the warrant, identify potential grounds for refusal, and defend our clients in the enforcement proceedings of the requested state. Simultaneously, we coordinate the defense in the requesting state, negotiate the withdrawal of the European Arrest Warrant or its conversion to less intrusive measures, and advocate for the lifting or reduction of extradition custody. Through our international network and our expertise in international criminal law, we protect clients from excessive, politically motivated, or disproportionate extradition proceedings.
European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO)
The European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) is a supranational law enforcement agency of the European Union that has been operational since 2021. Its establishment is based on Article 86 TFEU and Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 (EPPO Regulation).
It is endowed with far-reaching investigative and prosecuting powers and pursues crimes that affect the EU's financial interests (so-called PIF offenses). For those affected, this means that investigations can involve several states simultaneously, be centrally controlled, and very quickly cause significant interventions.
The EPPO is responsible for:
- Subsidy and grant fraud (e.g. EU regional funding, agricultural payments),
- Corruption and bribery, insofar as it concerns EU financial interests,
- cross-border VAT fraud, if the damage exceeds at least 10 million euros,
- Embezzlement or misuse of EU funds,
- Economic and regulatory offenses related to EU budget funds.
The EPPO does not replace national public prosecutors in these areas, but works alongside them – albeit with the priority right to take over proceedings.
Structure of the EPPO
It operates according to a hybrid model: The central office is based in Luxembourg, headed by the European Chief Prosecutor; strategic investigative decisions are made there. Each participating member state has a European Prosecutor – the link between the national system and Luxembourg. The European Delegated Prosecutors (EDPs) work in the member states – not at the central office – and conduct the practical investigations. They act on behalf of and under the supervision of the EPPO, not the national public prosecutor's office. This has created a system in which both national and supranational elements interact – which is why defense in EPPO proceedings is legally and tactically complex.
Powers of the EPPO
The EPPO has all the powers of a national public prosecutor's office, but with an expanded European scope. This includes searches, seizures, confiscations, telecommunications surveillance, financial investigations, account inquiries, asset freezes, international investigation teams, rapid activation of cross-border measures, European Investigation Orders (EIOs), and support from OLAF and Europol. Particularly intrusive is its ability to initiate parallel measures in several member states simultaneously. The EPPO can conduct searches, freeze assets, secure data, and question witnesses in multiple countries at the same time. These measures can cause significant economic and personal harm.
Risks for defendants
Although the EPPO is supranational, national criminal procedure codes still apply to individual measures. This leads to complex questions of jurisdiction, diverging legal remedies, and uncertainties regarding the admissibility of evidence. As soon as EU funds might be involved, the EPPO decides whether to take over national proceedings. For defendants in such criminal proceedings, this means a shift in jurisdiction that is difficult to predict. Furthermore, EPPO proceedings often occur alongside national tax, customs, or economic crime cases. Without coordinated defense, contradictory statements or double risks are likely.
What we, as a law firm experienced in EPPO proceedings, can do for you
Early risk analysis
Examining whether a procedure could fall within the scope of the EPPO and how to prevent a takeover.
Defense in EPPO investigations
Review of jurisdiction, challenge of searches, seizures and asset freezes; protection against parallel measures.
Coordination of multinational defense
Managing communication with delegated European prosecutors and foreign partner law firms.
Control of the use of evidence
Examination of whether evidence was lawfully obtained under national or EU law and how it can be challenged.
Prevention & Compliance
Advice on handling EU funds, funding structures and avoiding criminal risks.
The special expertise of our law firm
The lawyers at our firm have followed and supported the development of the EPPO from the very beginning. Since the EPPO's inception, we have been active as defense attorneys in numerous EPPO proceedings. Furthermore, we actively contribute to the legal discourse through publications, articles, and presentations and panel discussions at criminal law conferences. This combination of practical defense work, academic engagement, and international network allows us to provide clients with clear, swift, and strategic advice in a field of law that continues to evolve dynamically.
Criminal proceedings with an international element
Crimes with an international dimension are becoming increasingly important in today's globally networked economic and communications landscape. They occur wherever the crime scene, perpetrator, victim, assets, communication, or investigative measures are linked across national borders. Such cases are characterized by a complex interplay of national and international criminal law – and therefore require a particularly precise defense strategy.
When is a criminal proceeding considered to have an international dimension?
An international connection exists if one or more of the following elements are located outside of Germany:
Crime scene abroad
The crime is committed wholly or partly abroad.
Examples: Corruption by a German official abroad, fraud or breach of trust towards a foreign business partner.
Perpetrator or victim abroad
The perpetrator is abroad or the victim lives in another country.
For example, online fraud against people in other countries.
Consequences of the crime abroad
The legally relevant consequence occurs outside of Germany.
For example, financial losses incurred in another member state.
Foreign stakeholders or companies
In the case of complex corporate structures or joint ventures with headquarters in different countries.
Cross-border data or financial flows
Cybercrimes, online banking, cryptocurrencies, international asset transfers.
International investigations
Use of European Investigation Order (EEA), EPPO, Interpol, mutual legal assistance, etc.
In practice, a single cross-border element is usually enough to significantly complicate a procedure.
Common examples of crimes with an international connection include:
- VAT carousel fraud
- international money laundering
- fraudulent structures in foreign trade
- impermissible asset transfers
German criminal law in cases with a foreign element: the principle of territoriality and its exceptions
As a general rule, Section 3 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) establishes the territorial principle: Germany has jurisdiction if the crime was committed in Germany. However, numerous provisions extend German criminal liability abroad:
Section 7 of the German Criminal Code – Protection of Germans abroad
Crimes against Germans abroad can be prosecuted.
Section 7 Paragraph 2 of the German Criminal Code – Criminal liability of German offenders abroad
German nationals can be prosecuted for crimes committed abroad, provided the act is also a crime in that country (dual criminality).
Section 5 of the German Criminal Code – Crimes committed abroad against domestic legal interests
Germany is always responsible for certain offenses (e.g., counterfeit money, money laundering, terrorism).
Section 6 of the German Criminal Code – Universal Jurisdiction Principle
In certain serious offenses (e.g. human trafficking, war crimes), jurisdiction exists regardless of the location of the crime.
These regulations can lead to German public prosecutors being allowed to investigate far beyond national borders – and increasingly doing so.
International cooperation: From traditional legal assistance to EU instruments
International connections almost always involve cooperation with foreign authorities. The most important mechanisms are:
European Arrest Warrant (EAW)
Automated transfer of wanted persons within the EU.
Section 7 Paragraph 2 of the German Criminal Code – Criminal liability of German offenders abroad
German nationals can be prosecuted for crimes committed abroad, provided the act is also a crime in that country (dual criminality).
EPPO procedure
Centralized EU investigations into crimes against the EU budget.
International legal assistance
e.g. under the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters or bilateral treaties.
Interpol alerts, especially Red Notices
International alerts for the arrest or tracing of a suspect on behalf of a member state. Red Notices have no direct legal effect, but regularly lead to arrests or refusals of entry.
Each of these forms of international cooperation carries specific procedural risks – particularly due to differing standards and the speed of the procedures.
Currently in focus: International sanctions
International sanctions are legally binding measures imposed by international or supranational bodies (e.g., the EU, UN) against specific individuals, organizations, or states. They are politically or economically motivated coercive measures intended to influence or stop violations of international law, such as human rights abuses, wars of aggression, or the development of weapons of mass destruction, without the use of military force. Typical forms include:
- economic sanctions (trade and financial restrictions)
- Travel bans
- arms embargoes
- Asset freezing
The criminal consequences of violating sanctions in Germany are regulated by the Foreign Trade and Payments Act (AWG) and were recently tightened to meet EU minimum standards. The AWG provides for prohibitions punishable by criminal or administrative fines.
In this area of law with international dimensions, the legal situation is constantly changing. Currently, EU sanctions against Russia due to the war in Ukraine are dominant. In October 2025, the EU adopted the 19th Package, which includes export bans on dual-use goods, energy restrictions (e.g., a ban on liquefied natural gas imports from April 2026), and sanctions against the "shadow fleet" of 444 oil tankers and over 2,400 individuals/companies. Chinese companies are also being sanctioned for supplying drone components to Russia. Further measures target the military-industrial complex and circumvention routes.
What we as specialized criminal defense lawyers can do:
We clarify which state is responsible – and which is not.
The goal is to avoid parallel processes and unnecessary risks.
Coordination of multinational defense
We collaborate with partner law firms worldwide and manage unified defense strategies in multiple countries.
Control of the legality of foreign measures
We examine: requests for legal assistance, European Investigation Orders, European Arrest Warrants, and the admissibility of foreign evidence.
Protection from extradition and international arrest warrants
We prevent or limit extradition custody, the risks of arrest abroad, and Interpol alerts.
Defense against asset seizures
We take action against arrest, freezing and confiscation – both nationally and internationally.
Strategic coordination and communication
We coordinate statements, document deliveries, and defense and behavioral strategies between the states involved. If necessary, we coordinate the defense and a strategically sound approach with other lawyers.
Prevention and Compliance
We advise individuals, as well as companies and decision-makers, on risk areas in international business transactions.